以下是对这个问题的最新答案总结 而且 相关的 的问题。

PEP 8 recommends putting imports at the top. It's often more convenient to get ImportErrors when you first run your program rather than when your program first calls your function. Putting imports in the function scope can help avoid issues with circular imports. Putting imports in the function scope helps keep maintain a clean module namespace, so that it does not appear among tab-completion suggestions. Start-up time: imports in a function won't run until (if) that function is called. Might get significant with heavy-weight libraries. Even though import statements are super fast on subsequent runs, they still incur a speed penalty which can be significant if the function is trivial but frequently in use. Imports under the __name__ == "__main__" guard seem very reasonable. Refactoring might be easier if the imports are located in the function where they're used (facilitates moving it to another module). It can also be argued that this is good for readability. However, most would argue the contrary, i.e. Imports at the top enhance readability, since you can see all your dependencies at a glance. It seems unclear if dynamic or conditional imports favour one style over another.

I do not aspire to provide complete answer, because others have already done this very well. I just want to mention one use case when I find especially useful to import modules inside functions. My application uses python packages and modules stored in certain location as plugins. During application startup, the application walks through all the modules in the location and imports them, then it looks inside the modules and if it finds some mounting points for the plugins (in my case it is a subclass of a certain base class having a unique ID) it registers them. The number of plugins is large (now dozens, but maybe hundreds in the future) and each of them is used quite rarely. Having imports of third party libraries at the top of my plugin modules was a bit penalty during application startup. Especially some thirdparty libraries are heavy to import (e.g. import of plotly even tries to connect to internet and download something which was adding about one second to startup). By optimizing imports (calling them only in the functions where they are used) in the plugins I managed to shrink the startup from 10 seconds to some 2 seconds. That is a big difference for my users.

所以我的答案是否定的，不要总是把导入放在模块的顶部。

下面是一个示例，其中所有导入都位于最顶部(这是我唯一一次需要这样做)。我希望能够在Un*x和Windows上终止子进程。

import os
# ...
try:
    kill = os.kill  # will raise AttributeError on Windows
    from signal import SIGTERM
    def terminate(process):
        kill(process.pid, SIGTERM)
except (AttributeError, ImportError):
    try:
        from win32api import TerminateProcess  # use win32api if available
        def terminate(process):
            TerminateProcess(int(process._handle), -1)
    except ImportError:
        def terminate(process):
            raise NotImplementedError  # define a dummy function

(回顾:约翰·米利金所说。)

我很惊讶没有看到重复负载检查的实际成本数字，尽管有很多很好的解释。

如果你在顶部导入，不管发生什么，你都要加载命中。这非常小，但通常是毫秒级，而不是纳秒级。

If you import within a function(s), then you only take the hit for loading if and when one of those functions is first called. As many have pointed out, if that doesn't happen at all, you save the load time. But if the function(s) get called a lot, you take a repeated though much smaller hit (for checking that it has been loaded; not for actually re-loading). On the other hand, as @aaronasterling pointed out you also save a little because importing within a function lets the function use slightly-faster local variable lookups to identify the name later (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/477096/python-import-coding-style/4789963#4789963).

下面是一个简单测试的结果，该测试从函数内部导入了一些内容。报告的时间(在2.3 GHz Intel Core i7上的Python 2.7.14中)如下所示(第2个调用比后面的调用多似乎是一致的，尽管我不知道为什么)。

 0 foo:   14429.0924 µs
 1 foo:      63.8962 µs
 2 foo:      10.0136 µs
 3 foo:       7.1526 µs
 4 foo:       7.8678 µs
 0 bar:       9.0599 µs
 1 bar:       6.9141 µs
 2 bar:       7.1526 µs
 3 bar:       7.8678 µs
 4 bar:       7.1526 µs

代码:

from __future__ import print_function
from time import time

def foo():
    import collections
    import re
    import string
    import math
    import subprocess
    return

def bar():
    import collections
    import re
    import string
    import math
    import subprocess
    return

t0 = time()
for i in xrange(5):
    foo()
    t1 = time()
    print("    %2d foo: %12.4f \xC2\xB5s" % (i, (t1-t0)*1E6))
    t0 = t1
for i in xrange(5):
    bar()
    t1 = time()
    print("    %2d bar: %12.4f \xC2\xB5s" % (i, (t1-t0)*1E6))
    t0 = t1

Curt提出了一个很好的观点:第二个版本更清晰，并且会在加载时失败，而不是在加载后失败，而且出乎意料。

通常我不担心加载模块的效率，因为它(a)非常快，(b)大多数只发生在启动时。

如果你不得不在意想不到的时候加载重量级模块，使用__import__函数动态加载它们可能更有意义，并确保捕获ImportError异常，并以合理的方式处理它们。

以下是对这个问题的最新答案总结 而且 相关的 的问题。

PEP 8 recommends putting imports at the top. It's often more convenient to get ImportErrors when you first run your program rather than when your program first calls your function. Putting imports in the function scope can help avoid issues with circular imports. Putting imports in the function scope helps keep maintain a clean module namespace, so that it does not appear among tab-completion suggestions. Start-up time: imports in a function won't run until (if) that function is called. Might get significant with heavy-weight libraries. Even though import statements are super fast on subsequent runs, they still incur a speed penalty which can be significant if the function is trivial but frequently in use. Imports under the __name__ == "__main__" guard seem very reasonable. Refactoring might be easier if the imports are located in the function where they're used (facilitates moving it to another module). It can also be argued that this is good for readability. However, most would argue the contrary, i.e. Imports at the top enhance readability, since you can see all your dependencies at a glance. It seems unclear if dynamic or conditional imports favour one style over another.